Loading ITAT cases…
165 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the AO to examine the Government of Andhra Pradesh's orders and the latest CBDT circular on the issue of sales tax deferment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a DVO report of another co-owner without any new material and without the Assessing Officer having the power to refer the issue to the DVO for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that no evidence was presented to show that the transactions were substantively assessed in the hands of the other party. Following a precedent, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal summarily without providing detailed reasons. The CIT(A) failed to discharge his statutory obligation to state reasons for his decision on each point.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order. The penalty was cancelled because the notice under Section 274 did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under, making it defective.
The Tribunal, with the consent of both parties, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the share capital and premium. The assessee is permitted to submit supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and that summons were issued to wrong addresses. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding administrative and establishment expenses. The assessee's appeal was allowed, implying the disallowance made by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery found was not substantial and considered it a normal custom for women to receive jewellery as 'stree dhan' or on other occasions. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was considered arbitrary and not based on cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery found was not substantial and considered it a normal custom for women to receive jewellery as 'stree dhan' or on other occasions. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was considered arbitrary and not based on cogent evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lacs, falling under the purview of the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a company that has already been amalgamated and ceased to exist are null and void. The CIT(A) had correctly annulled the assessment order on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars regarding enhanced monetary limits for appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the revenue appeal, having a tax effect below the specified limit, is to be treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law because no notice was issued to the assessee before passing the order. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal allowed the ground related to the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, stating it was wrongly made on a reimbursement basis. However, it dismissed the ground concerning the addition for share application money due to lack of evidence and allowed the deletion of TDS disallowance as the tax was deposited on time.